9. Brazil: Alonso gains 6 points from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg crash. Note that I'm not including the first lap incident between Vettel and Senna, which clearly cost Vettel a few points, because it's debatable who's was at fault.

Just to humour you, let's review Brazil shall we?

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Alonso, with Hamilton retiring and Hulkenberg dropping behind.

Hamilton and Hulkenberg both crashed in front of Vettel, with Hamilton retiring. Also, Sergio Perez, Bruno Senna, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean retired while they were ahead of Vettel. So that is five retirements, if I am not mistaken, of some quite tough competitors. How many points do you want to count for those? Shall we say 8?

Are you seriously suggesting that these were going to end ahead of Vettel in the end?

And why not? In any case, what I am stating (and not suggesting) is that in doing your analysis you have taken the most favourable alternative for Vettel vs the most desfavourable for Alonso.

superuser wrote:

He was directly behind Alonso in lap 10 or so for god's sake!

Thanks, among other circumstances, to the four drivers I mentioned above retiring and gifting him those positions (isn't that the way you describe it when it happens to Alonso?)

superuser wrote:

Even with damaged car, Vetell was extremely fast in the wet, and when it was wet, had no problems whatsoever to overtake (including Kobayashi, who made it as hard as possible), Massa, Rosberg, etc., so the only guys that could finish ahead of him, finished ahead of him.

That statement is baseless; you simply don't have a clue of how fast Grosjean or Maldonado would have been, not to forget the fact that Vettel could have found trouble if trying to overtake an aggressive defender.

superuser wrote:

Alonso gained 6 pts, Vettel only 2 (Hulkenberg was still comfortably ahead of Vettel), so its still 4 points for Alonso.

If it wasn't for the problems in the first lap, which made the car very slow in dry conditions, Vettel would be finghting for the win, he defintely had the pace. In many stages of the race (when it was wet) he was the fastest car on the track by quite a margin.

Again, you simply don't know what could have happened.

And finally, read carefully what you have written: you dismiss claims that Vettel was lucky because, according to you, he had the advantage of a faster car; yet you insist in negating Alonso's own advantage of a more reliable car by attributing everything to luck. I think that you will find that speed and reliability are two sides of the same coin, so if you don't want to acknowledge Vettel's "good luck" in having a faster car you should stop acknowledging his "bad luck" whan he loses points because of reliability.

Very simple. Let's imagine they both have 100 points each at this point of the championship (just a nice round number, doesn't really matter). If the alternator in RB wasn't gone missing, Vettel would have 125 and Alonso 118, net gain of 7 points for Vettel vs Alonso. As it was, Alonso had 125 and vettel remained at 100 - net loss of 25 for Vettel. The difference between the two scenarios is 32 points for Alonso, all because of the engine failure.

How can he lose 32 points. When you only get 25 points for a win. The difference may be 32. But that cannot be the points loss.

But at the end, it's difference in the points that is meaningful for the WDC, not the absolute points. In this case, it's not only that Vettel loses 25 points, he also gifts 7 points to his main competitor. It works both ways.

No it doesn't. He cannot physically get more points than there are to offer. The maximum is 25 points. He lost 25 points to Alonso. He can't loose 32, because there weren't 32 to be had in the first place. To say he lost 32 points means he had the potential to gain 32 points which he didn't. Vettel lost a potential 25 points. Not 32.

I can't be the only one who can't make any mathematical sense of this analysis, am I?

Anyway, Ferrari had a bulletproof car and that is not luck. Putting yourself in a position to take advantage of others misfortunes is not luck either. Clipping another drivers frontwing through bad awareness is not unlucky. Being struck by the same reliability problem more than once is not unlucky. It's called bad reliability and it's a part of F1 just like good pace is.

superuser wrote:

Really, please educate yourself about the negative numbers first and then we'll discuss again.

Loosing 32 points requires 32 available points. No matter how you look at it mathematically, you're wrong.

Last edited by Herbalist on Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Really, please educate yourself about the negative numbers first and then we'll discuss again.

Nice one. Putting in an insult on the sly.

My problem is this. You in your orginal post said Vettel lost 32 points to Alonso. Okay, that is physically impossible.

Why? Because in a F1 race, there are 25 points for a win. That means, there is a maximum of 25 points on offer. That in turn means, you cannot loose 32 points, because there aren't 32 points to be had. For your logic to work, for Vettel to loose 32 points, that means Alonso had to have gained 32 points. Which he didn't. As I have explained there are only 25 points for a win.

If you want to use a maths model I'll try. Vettel and Alonso both have 100 points. If Vettel goes on to win he has 125 points to Alonso's 118. As we know, Vettel had a failure, which cost him that win. So the points will be Alonso 125 to Vettel 100. Alonso has gained 25 points on Vettel. Or in other words, Vettel has lost 25 points to Alonso.

Why this is the better way to look at it? Because it not only measures how much driver X loses because of his misfortune, but also how much the other driver gains because of it. If Vettel were behind Alnoso when his car gave up, Alonso wouldn't gain additional points from his failure, just the points vettel lost. But because Vettel was ahead of Alnoso, Alnoso was gifted 7 more points he wouldn't have otherwise.

It's the same in Alonso's case but the difference is that he rarely was before Vettel during his own misfortunes.

That is why it's so hurtful for the WDC chances when you DNF from 1st and your main competitor is 2nd. It's a huge setback that may take many wins to claw back.

Quote:

Nice one. Putting in an insult on the sly.

Sorry about that but when I don't understand something, I usually ask politely instead of accusing someone of math illiteracy

Last edited by superuser on Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

your whole original post dealt with each situation as you, admittedly liking Vettel, chose to see things. As was pointed out by others, you chose to see things that Alonso did well or benefited from as "good luck", yet dismiss those same things has non factors when Vettel experienced them. Example, two cars retiring in front of Alonso moving him up two places in the results... yet you neglect the fact that Vettel also benefited by those two retirements.

You have come up with the "32 point" difference and stuck to it when there is no way that it works. Had Vettel won the race, he would have gotten 25 points...and that is IF he won. that does not mean that Alonso would not have gotten any points... but if Nando missed out on the points it is TWENTY FIVE points no matter what "modern math" you choose to apply.

In your post you have chosen to maximize everything Vettel and minimize everything Alonso.... don't be surprised that not everybody is going to buy into it.

I'm no math wiz and I'm sure someone can and will correct me with the proper terminology but here's how I see the points differential that superuses is talking about:

A. I have a cow. You don't. I have more milk than you. You're envious.

B. I lose the cow. We're both cowless. We drink vodka since we have no milk.

C. I lose the cow. I'm drunk and I feel like having déjà vu. You find my cow and hide it in your barn. I've still got nothing. You have a cow now. Now you have more milk than me and I'm drunk and sad. And singing.

As you see B. and C. are different but I only lost one cow not two. Unless you're drunk already and seing double.

So, does that make Spa a 43 point swing in favor of Seb as Alonso was taken out by Grosjean scoring 0 points and Vettel scored 18 for finishing 2nd?

Perhaps Alonso would have won that race giving him 25 and perhaps Vettel would have been collected by Grosjean instead netting him 0. You see, we could play this game all day long. Then would it have been a 50 point swing? -25 for Vettel had he lost a first place fininsh, +25 for Alonso had he won. Both big IFs, but then your original post is basically IFs

You can spin things to say what ever way you wish them to say... It works both ways.

_________________Forza Ferrari WCCs = 16 WDCs = 15

Last edited by Blake on Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.

You have two scenarios with 100 and 125 and still end up with 32 diff? No further explaining required, but that's not math.

It's again those what-if points, where the potential winner loses his victory points (25) + the 7 point advantage to the 2nd placed guy and also the second gets promoted to first place.

But you don't get any points before the race is finished, therefore it's silly to say somebody lost 25 points as if they'd already had them, because you only have zero points on lap 32 out of 59 even if you were leading. Cars can break down and drivers can make mistakes.

I'm no math wiz and I'm sure someone can and will correct me with the proper terminology but here's how I see the points differential that superuses is talking about:

A. I have a cow. You don't. I have more milk than you. You're envious.

B. I lose the cow. We're both cowless. We drink vodka since we have no milk.

C. I lose the cow. I'm drunk and I feel like having déjà vu. You find my cow and hide it in your barn. I've still got nothing. You have a cow now. Now you have more milk than me and I'm drunk and sad. And singing.

As you see B. and C. are different but I only lost one cow not two. Unless you're drunk already and seing double.

I am not sure that I follow your logic - why would anyone hide a cow in their barn when they can have vodka instead? Plus, if you are singing you cannot be that sad!

I'm no math wiz and I'm sure someone can and will correct me with the proper terminology but here's how I see the points differential that superuses is talking about:

A. I have a cow. You don't. I have more milk than you. You're envious.

B. I lose the cow. We're both cowless. We drink vodka since we have no milk.

C. I lose the cow. I'm drunk and I feel like having déjà vu. You find my cow and hide it in your barn. I've still got nothing. You have a cow now. Now you have more milk than me and I'm drunk and sad. And singing.

As you see B. and C. are different but I only lost one cow not two. Unless you're drunk already and seing double.

I am not sure that I follow your logic - why would anyone hide a cow in their barn when they can have vodka instead? Plus, if you are singing you cannot be that sad!

That saying has never made sense to me. Sometimes you can position yourself in such a way that you can salvage a situation or gain an advantage. Sometimes you can drive with a sympathy that will cause you less failures, or an attitude that will help keep you out of trouble. You can certainly prepare to the point you're leaving very little to luck. But that's not making your own luck, that's making the right judgement calls and doing all you can. Actual luck is something you have no control over. Ultimately there's nothing you can do if someone is intent on Grosjeaning you at the first turn from 8 places away, or the mechanic drops a wheelnut when you're bang on your marks, or the alternator fails when you're leading rather than when you're 6th.

I can believe luck evens itself out and that the right preperation, attitude and decisions can overcome any number of instances we might (erroneously) describe as luck. But you can't make your own luck.

Sorry, that phrase has just always bugged me! I'll shut up about it now.

An F1 race is not like a maths test, where everyone can score maximum points. It's the very definition of a zero sum game, where every point you win, you also take from your competitor. So retiring from the lead of a GP means you lose more than just the maximum points available relative to your rival, especially if he is running right behind you.

When Vettel retired from the lead of the GP in Valencia, he lost 25 possible points. Every point Vettel loses, Alonso effectively gains. Alonso gained in the sense that sense because Vettel had lost a possible 25 points advantage in the championship. Alonso gained a further 7 points because he was promoted into 1st.

An easy way to think about it is this. What if Vettel had finished Valencia in 1st and Alonso in second, and the rest of the season had turned out exactly as it did. Well, Vettel would have finished on 306 points (instead of 281), and Alonso would have finished on 271 (instead of 278). Instead of a 3 point gap at the end of the season, there would have been a 35 point gap between them. So when superuser say Vettel lost 32 point, this is what he is referring to, i.e. he is talking relative to Alonso.

Last edited by mkone on Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

it makes no difference whatsoever, it is a meaningless waste of time and exercise. It is based on "what ifs" and "if only" and if any one else were so bored, they could do up one of these threads for every driver in the field. It comes across as merely yet another attempt to discredit Alonso as the Vettel fans cry about others discrediting Seb's accomplishments.

Did Alonso get some breaks during the season? No doubt he did. Did other drivers also get some lucky breaks during the year.. Yes, they did, and that includes Vettel.

There has never been a WDC without a bit of good luck, and never will be. The same can be said about the runner-up and 3rd and so forth

I must say though, I don't recall ever seeing such an effort into making the WDC runner-up merely being lucky to have been that close... winners yes, but runner-up? Does this reflect an uneasiness on the part of Vettel supporters about the narrowness of his victory or frustration over the fact that many feel that Alonso was the superior driver this year despite not winning the WDC himself?

These guys are not playing cards, it has nothing to do with luck. Reliability is a part of the sport so this analisis is lacking objectivity.

Hm, so the Ferrari wasn't that bad after all? Because it wasn't that fast but it wasn't that fragile either. Maybe, just maybe, the WCC reflect the car strength reasonably well (considering both the reliability and the speed). So Alonso had the 2nd best (not fastest) car in season and finished 2nd. Logical, isn't it?

I wouldn't say Ferrari had a better car than McLaren, I would say Ferrari has been a better team this year. McLaren lost many points due to tactical errors and driving incidents.

it makes no difference whatsoever, it is a meaningless waste of time and exercise. It is based on "what ifs" and "if only" and if any one else were so bored, they could do up one of these threads for every driver in the field. It comes across as merely yet another attempt to discredit Alonso as the Vettel fans cry about others discrediting Seb's accomplishments.

Did Alonso get some breaks during the season? No doubt he did. Did other drivers also get some lucky breaks during the year.. Yes, they did, and that includes Vettel.

There has never been a WDC without a bit of good luck, and never will be. The same can be said about the runner-up and 3rd and so forth

I must say though, I don't recall ever seeing such an effort into making the WDC runner-up merely being lucky to have been that close... winners yes, but runner-up? Does this reflect an uneasiness on the part of Vettel supporters about the narrowness of his victory or frustration over the fact that many feel that Alonso was the superior driver this year despite not winning the WDC himself?

Vettel won the WDC. It doesn't matter if he won it by one point or by 100. He is the champion, and the history books shall record that. 10 years from now, no one will talk about who was second in the championship, so really, us Vettel fans are not bothered in the slightest about whether other people feel Alonso "deserved" it more.

The question about who was luckier is about "what if" scenarios. Luck is something out of the driver's control, and no one can argue against the fact that both Alonso and Vettel lost points this season due to events beyond their control. Whether one was being Grosjeaned or an alternator failing. What is really obvious is that some people do not want to believe Vettel had some bad luck this season as well, including Stefano Domenicali, the Ferrari team principal. Stefano tried to make out that Alonso was the moral victor because he nearly won it having only scored in 18 races.

The most laughable of these is when people try to argue that Vettel was very lucky in the final race to have an incident in the first lap.

it makes no difference whatsoever, it is a meaningless waste of time and exercise. It is based on "what ifs" and "if only" and if any one else were so bored, they could do up one of these threads for every driver in the field. It comes across as merely yet another attempt to discredit Alonso as the Vettel fans cry about others discrediting Seb's accomplishments.

Did Alonso get some breaks during the season? No doubt he did. Did other drivers also get some lucky breaks during the year.. Yes, they did, and that includes Vettel.

There has never been a WDC without a bit of good luck, and never will be. The same can be said about the runner-up and 3rd and so forth

I must say though, I don't recall ever seeing such an effort into making the WDC runner-up merely being lucky to have been that close... winners yes, but runner-up? Does this reflect an uneasiness on the part of Vettel supporters about the narrowness of his victory or frustration over the fact that many feel that Alonso was the superior driver this year despite not winning the WDC himself?

Vettel won the WDC. It doesn't matter if he won it by one point or by 100. He is the champion, and the history books shall record that. 10 years from now, no one will talk about who was second in the championship, so really, us Vettel fans are not bothered in the slightest about whether other people feel Alonso "deserved" it more.

The question about who was luckier is about "what if" scenarios. Luck is something out of the driver's control, and no one can argue against the fact that both Alonso and Vettel lost points this season due to events beyond their control. Whether one was being Grosjeaned or an alternator failing. What is really obvious is that some people do not want to believe Vettel had some bad luck this season as well, including Stefano Domenicali, the Ferrari team principal. Stefano tried to make out that Alonso was the moral victor because he nearly won it having only scored in 18 races.

The most laughable of these is when people try to argue that Vettel was very lucky in the final race to have an incident in the first lap.

He won it, and well deserved, yet even Vettel has been saying that he deserved it and that the car factor has not been not so influential... why does he need to maintain those statements? Maybe because inside he knows that Alonso deserved it even more... Lap times in some circuits speak by themselves.

it makes no difference whatsoever, it is a meaningless waste of time and exercise. It is based on "what ifs" and "if only" and if any one else were so bored, they could do up one of these threads for every driver in the field. It comes across as merely yet another attempt to discredit Alonso as the Vettel fans cry about others discrediting Seb's accomplishments.

Did Alonso get some breaks during the season? No doubt he did. Did other drivers also get some lucky breaks during the year.. Yes, they did, and that includes Vettel.

There has never been a WDC without a bit of good luck, and never will be. The same can be said about the runner-up and 3rd and so forth

I must say though, I don't recall ever seeing such an effort into making the WDC runner-up merely being lucky to have been that close... winners yes, but runner-up? Does this reflect an uneasiness on the part of Vettel supporters about the narrowness of his victory or frustration over the fact that many feel that Alonso was the superior driver this year despite not winning the WDC himself?

Vettel won the WDC. It doesn't matter if he won it by one point or by 100. He is the champion, and the history books shall record that. 10 years from now, no one will talk about who was second in the championship, so really, us Vettel fans are not bothered in the slightest about whether other people feel Alonso "deserved" it more.

The question about who was luckier is about "what if" scenarios. Luck is something out of the driver's control, and no one can argue against the fact that both Alonso and Vettel lost points this season due to events beyond their control. Whether one was being Grosjeaned or an alternator failing. What is really obvious is that some people do not want to believe Vettel had some bad luck this season as well, including Stefano Domenicali, the Ferrari team principal. Stefano tried to make out that Alonso was the moral victor because he nearly won it having only scored in 18 races.

The most laughable of these is when people try to argue that Vettel was very lucky in the final race to have an incident in the first lap.

He won it, and well deserved, yet even Vettel has been saying that he deserved it and that the car factor has not been not so influential... why does he need to maintain those statements? Maybe because inside he knows that Alonso deserved it even more... Lap times in some circuits speak by themselves.

Or maybe not. What about the lap times in the other circuits?

Can you say that Mercedes was the best car this season? Their lap times in some circuits speak by themselves too.

6. Japan: Alonso loses possible 18 points, Vettel gains 18 points from him. I'm not sure that I can even count this one as bad luck only, as it was ruled as racing incident but someone can accuse me of being unfair, so I'm including it.

9. Brazil: Alonso gains 6 points from the Hamilton/Hulkenberg crash. Note that I'm not including the first lap incident between Vettel and Senna, which clearly cost Vettel a few points, because it's debatable who's was at fault.

In total: Alonso gains 29 points to Vettel from luck. I'm not counting the points Massa gifted to him in USA and Brasil (at least 10 more), while Webber wasn't at all helpful at that stage of the championship.

Note: I'm not saying Alonso didn't have a great season. It was maybe his best, but without his luck, he would have lost the title long before Brazil. My analysis is very conservative as you can see in bold above.

Note2: Hamilton had the worst luck from everybody, it's unbelievable how bad it was, nobody can deny that.

Obviously RB was faster than Ferrari in most of the races (but not all) and if they were the first and second fastest team, it would've meant a lot (7 pts difference between the first and second). But McLarens were even faster than RB, ensuring that Alonso lost at most 3 pts per race when his car was third fastest (and in many tracks it was second fastest, not 3rd fastest). That is because usualy one of the McLarens self-destructed and the 2nd drivers in RB and Ferrari were nowhere most of the time.